Stu's Blog

The Great Inversion: Church, Evangelism, Discipleship

The North American church has largely adopted a system of priorities that looks like this:

1. Church
2. Evangelism
3. Discipleship

The reasoning for this order is that building the church lays the groundwork and creates the ability to effectively evangelize and disciple the larger community. A growing church amasses the resources to initiate effective evangelism programs. The fact that the church is growing is evidence that the church is achieving success at reaching people and gathering them in. As they are brought into the life of the church, they are exposed to the gospel, and make decisions and commitments to serve Christ, disengage with the world and its ways, and form meaningful and life giving relationships with other believers. Most of this activity happens within the context of the local church and its authorized extensions such as neighborhood small groups. As the church grows, it is able to provide more opportunities for its membership to participate in and receive the things necessary for spiritual growth. The church begins to more and more take the place of the world in its member’s lives. The church becomes the transcendent meeting place for God and his people. The pastor become the mediator for God’s Word. Bible classes and discipleship groups become the means and measure of spiritual growth. Spiritual formation becomes the responsibility of the trained and often paid staff. Evangelism happens inside the church during the preaching of the Word of God. The church becomes central to the life of its membership who are expected to invest their time and money in keeping the church resourced and growing.

This is all backwards. Lesslie Newbiggin said that we inverted the biblical injunction to “be in the world but not of it” and have become more likely to be of the world but not in it. The gospels present a different story, a narrative of God coming to lost people with a defining and primary challenge. Jesus said, over and over again, “follow me.” The word “church” is hardly mentioned in the gospels, a total of two times, both in Matthew. Jesus responded to Peter’s declaration of faith in Matt 16:18 saying, “on this rock I will build my church.” As he never talked of building an institution and actually predicted destruction when referring to the existing religious institution (Matt 24:2), he could not possibly be referring to the visible church, especially in the form that it presently takes throughout much of North America. He was rather referring to the mystical body of Christ, the church universal, all who would join themselves to the life of God through Jesus. The other reference to church occurs in Matt 18:17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector,” where the issue is over reconciliation and restoration in this mystical body when an offense that threatens to destroy the fabric of this body has occurred and the offender is resistant to repentance.

The word “follow,” or a form of it, is mentioned approximately seventy five times in the gospels in direct reference to following Jesus. To follow Jesus is the essence of discipleship. Every disciple entered into his relationship with Jesus by responding to the call to follow him. The specific phrase “follow me,” uttered by the lips of Jesus, occurs twenty times in the gospels. While there are additional requirements for discipleship, following Jesus is primary. Following always implies choices, both to go in the direction that the one you are following has set, and to abandon the direction that you have chosen and are presently traveling. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where the word repent comes into play. We can’t begin to follow someone until we realize that we are heading the other way and are willing to stop heading the other way. Those who repent, change direction, begin to follow Jesus, become his disciples. He will teach them although they will not often “get it.” No matter, if they keep following, they will eventually begin to understand. And out of this group of followers, a community of faith will emerge. A local expression of followers who begin to meet together is what constitutes a church. This is why the Great Commandment says nothing about building a church but everything about making disciples. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:19-20).

It is of note that the Great Commandment is not a call to evangelize or build a church. Among Evangelicals, it is common to say that our fist obligation to God is to evangelize and “win the lost to Christ.” Evangelicals question whether one can disciple someone who has not already been evangelized. This question is grounded upon an inadequate understanding of discipleship. Evangelicals tend to view expository bible study and preaching as the means and mediators of discipleship. It is also of note that Jesus never organized bible study groups. His preaching, of which we have snippets, could hardly be called expository. The Sermon on the Mount, arguably the greatest sermon recorded in all of Scripture and found in Matthew chapters five through seven, is hardly a detailed analysis of an Old Testament pericope. None the less, the impact of this sermon is noted at the conclusion of Matthew chapter seven: “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (Matt. 7:28-29).

It appears that the system of priorities revealed in the gospels is quite different than the current operating system in the North American church. I would suggest that it looks like this:

1. Discipleship
2. Evangelism
3. Church

It begins and stands on the call to follow Jesus. As we do this and call others to join in the journey, they too may choose to truly join in the life of Jesus and through him the life of God. They will appropriate the gospel as their own good news. They will be evangelized. As they do so, they become joined to the mystical body of Christ, the church universal. The local expression of the church is made up of such people. Those who congregate but are not truly joined to God through Christ are not really a church, no matter what they call themselves. They may be an organization even committed to good works, but they are not really the church. And the ones that masquerade as the church but are not committed to anything greater than their own self interest are really no more than or different from a club.

It is highly questionable whether Jesus gave his life for a club, just as it is highly questionable whether he is out to build the biggest and best club around. Our obsessive interest in building a bigger and better church says more about the very human desire to achieve and succeed than anything revealed in the gospels. Especially in consumptive North America, bigger is better, whether it is super sizing your Big Mac or building a church. Jesus is in the business of making disciples, and particularly disciples who make disciples. This will always require going. Our goal should not be to build the biggest gathering in town but to go out into the world with the gospel call to follow Jesus and become disciples. It is true that Jesus came to planet earth, but he didn’t go to Jerusalem to build a church. He went out to the highways and byways to call people into following him. At the end of his earthly ministry, he did go to Jerusalem to do at least three things: 1. to prophetically speak of the destruction of institutional religion, 2. to suffer, die, and be resurrected so that a new way to enter into the life of God would become possible for all people, and 3. to delegate the work of discipleship to his followers. This is now our challenge, to go into the world and make disciples of all nations. The church, if it is to emerge at all, will emerge from the disciples who will constitute it.

What shall we do with this thing called the church? Some advocate blowing it up and starting over. There is an assumption that you’ll end up with something radically different. That may not be true, especially if you try to start something new with the same people operating with the same set of priorities. Why not attempt to cultivate a better funded and more robust culture of discipleship within the current church context? Perhaps the real church will emerge from the institution as real disciples are made. If a church can devolve into an institution, it may be that an institution can be re-purposed and renewed through discipleship and regain its identity as the body of the one who gives it life. A few bible classes and good sermons are not going to get the job done. The small group/social club experience is not sufficient either. We are going to have to get back to what it means to follow Christ. The full implications of laying down your life (Matt 10:37-39; Luke 14:26-33) need to be heard, responded to, and lived into. The truth is that we can become disciples, even those of us who are currently card carrying members of the social club that calls itself the church. We may need to become a little less religious to hear and respond to the call. Jesus had better luck with tax collectors and prostitutes than he did with religious leaders. But the way of discipleship is open to any that will follow. This is our challenge, to follow in the full meaning of the word, at the cost of our lives as we know it, in faith that a new life lies ahead and open to us. We can and must follow Christ fully if we are ever to become the real living church, and to do what he told us is now our job, to make disciples who will follow him and make disciples.

The June 6, 2011 issue of eWEEK contained the article “IBM: 100 Years of Innovation.” The article preceded the 100 year anniversary of IBM later this month, which in the world of tech translates to at least a millennium (think dog years). Whatever you think of IBM (devil personified, inspiration for the rogue computer HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, other?), they have had a remarkable run. A defining ethos has to do with character, values, and principles.

I recall reading the book Father, Son & Co: My Life at IBM and Beyond a number of years ago and the one thing I remember most was a story of the younger Watson learning a life lesson from his dad. They had just used the restroom at a hotel and after washing their hands, dad wiped down the splashes on the sink that junior had left. Dad said (near as I can recall), “You always want to leave the place better than you found it.”

Thomas J. Watson Sr., the guy who started it all, built the company on a few core values. From an new book, Making the World Work Better: The Ideas That Shaped a Century and a Company comes this quote: “Since its early days, IBM has been operated based on a set of core beliefs. IBM would distinguish itself with its respect for the individual, its pursuit of excellence in all things and its commitment to providing the best customer service. These values were baked into the core DNA by Thomas Watson Sr., who built the near-failing organization of 1914 into an industrial giant with staying power. And that DNA has taken hold in millions of employees over the course of 100 years.”

IBM has had its ups and downs, made big bets some of which paid off hugely, experienced near-death in the late 1980′s, had a succession of CEO’s, and is still going strong.

IBM seemed to lose its way in the 80′s under John F. Akers. This was their near-death era. They brought in Louis V. Gerstner Jr. who “quickly slashed headcount and spending, and reset the company’s focus on the customer.” Gerstner was not there for too many years. It reminds me a bit of when a church loses its way, is seriously heading downhill, and a turn-around interim comes in and does the necessary surgery. There may be blood on the walls, upset and angry people, but the patient (church) is saved from bleeding to death. Someone has to have the courage to make the hard decisions (and a few enemies), and that takes some character.

Next up was Samuel J. Palmisano, who continues to be the chairman and CEO since his appointment in 2002. He came on board and quickly established several values that have defined IBM for this era: “dedication to every client’s success; innovation that matters-for our company and for the world; and trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.”

My point is that character and values matter. IBM is no church (well, some might beg to differ) but at least some of its leaders led in a principled manner and IBM is still here and still strong.

One of the hardest things for older churches is to have the courage to act on their principles in the face of decline and/or opposition. It kills me to see leaders hesitate to act on what they are convinced is right. We of all people should be fearless. Or maybe we lost sight of the hope we once held. Then, losing our way, we lost our character too.

I watched the movie Becket recently. The story is strong and the acting compelling. Burton and O’Toole were both up for best actor. An amazing story indeed. Thomas Becket, murdered December 29, 1170, was a most unlikely candidate for Archbishop. It was a political appointment that backfired on King Henry II. Becket is portrayed in the movie as finding his purpose in life not in political power and privilege but in defending the glory of God. The movie is a study of the transformation of Becket’s values and character. He became a man willing and able to stand up to the king and paid for his convictions with his life. Four years later the king submitted himself to public humiliation at the demand of the pope, being whipped by the monks of Canterbury as penance for the part he played in the Becket’s murder. Based on a true tail, though retold with a degree of historical liberty, the movie is a reminder that character matters.

This is very cool…

See more of the artist’s work: http://csismn.com

A symptom of the “bubble” is the gradual inclusion of CCL (Christian Code Language) in everyday conversation such that we become increasingly incomprehensible to the mainstream community. Dan Kimball, in “They Like Jesus But Not The Church” says: “We find ourselves regularly using Christian words and cliches, such as backsliding, prayer warrior, fellowship, quiet time, traveling mercies, ‘I have a check in my spirit.’ … The transformation is complete. We have become citizens of the bubble.”¹ Theologians often use technical language to talk about God because they can’t figure out how to say what they want to say in simple language. At least they are intentional. We often coin and use Christianese because it distinguishes us from “normal” people. It’s kewl to know the secret lingo. There are websites for those who need to study up – google Christianese. Some other goodies: “when I used to be in the world,” “bless his heart,” “she caused me to stumble,” “I don’t mean to judge, but the truth is,” “truthfully,” “Lord willing.” I have a few questions for you: 1. Are you in the habit of using Christianese? 2. Do you care that non-Christians have no idea what you’re talking about when you use Christianese? Actually, they will have an idea, but it’s probably not what you intended. 3. Should you care? 4. Why should you care? 5. Did you notice that Jesus, though at times hard to understand, didn’t coin new language to talk about God but used familiar language about things that grow, losing and finding stuff, fighting, working, loving, families, friends, enemies and such?

On the heels of 1 Chron 29:14,¹ I was reading Num 11:1-15 in the TNK² and this caught my eye: “Now our gullets are shriveled” (Num 11.6a TNK). If you ever needed a primer on complaining, look to Numbers 11. A good complainer must be 1. ungrateful, 2. a creative articulator, 3. know how to whine, and finally, 4. be willing to gorge themselves on what they complain they lack. If you are human, you probably know from personal experience a little about each of these essential qualities, but hopefully don’t excel to the degree that these folks did. The translation of v6 is somewhat ambiguous³. I like shriveled gullets. It has zing! Really good whiners don’t use plain vanilla language. Even Moses does a bit of whining: “Where am I to get meat to give to all this people?”  (Num 11:13 ESV) The NLT says whine/whined/whining is vs 10,13,18,20. The TNK substitutes weeping in vs 10 which leads me to believe that weeping is occasionally an appropriate substitute for whining. The BDE ups the ante by including vs 4 when you look for weeping. But I prefer whining as weeping is somewhat ambiguous. So what can you expect in return for a good whine? How about fire from heaven? “and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some” (Num 11:1 ESV). If that doesn’t finish it, you might just get what you asked for. “18 Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the hearing of the LORD, saying, ‘Who will give us meat to eat? For it was better for us in Egypt.’ Therefore the LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat. 19 You shall not eat just one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, 20 but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you. (Num 11:18-20 ESV). This is serious stuff, but you too can be a first class whiner if you try, and it seems that complaining is part of the human condition. We have no need for instruction as this comes quite naturally. Where does this come from? Is there an antidote? Please, no simple moralisms. Been there, tried that.

A ten-piece outfit from Long Beach and San Diego, the Rabbinical School Dropouts play Jewish soul music (klezmer) combined with an avant-garde jazz twist. Music critics have described them as: an “esoteric space klezmer ensemble,” “psycho klez,” “Frank Zappa and Dr. Seuss intersect[ing] … [with] Woody Allen and Howard Stern”, and “[avant-garde pioneer] Sun Ra and Frank Zappa at Woody Harrelson’s backyard BBQ.”^{young Perlman perfomance. I attended a few Bar Mitzvahs in my youth. I also attended a couple of Zappa concerts long ago. I’ve always been a fan of Dr. Seuss and even kind of enjoy Sun Ra a little bit. So I was ready for the Rabbinical School Dropouts.here and here.}